On 02/11/17 11:18, Stephen Frost wrote:
Not having a way to reliably sync the WAL files copied by archive command to disk, in particular, really is an issue, it's not some feature, it's a requirement of a functional PG backup system. The other requirement for a functional PG backup system is a check to verify that all of the WAL for a given backup has been archived safely to disk, otherwise the backup is incomplete and can't be used.
Funnily enough, the original poster's scripts were attempting to address (at least some) of this: he was sending stuff to swift, so if he got a ok return code then it is *there* - that being the whole point of a distributed, fault tolerant object store (I do swift support BTW).
I wonder if you are seeing this discussion in the light of folk doing backups to unreliable storage locations (e.g: the same server, NFS etc etc), then sure I completely agree with what you are saying (these issue impact backup designs no matter what tool is used to write them).
Best wishes Mark -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
